[removed]

[deleted]

I’m pretty sure he’s gonna get indicted, what trump said is a threat to keep those charges from happening. I doubt he even knows the Pandora’s box he’s just opened

[removed]

In a free country , everyone’s a critic

Haha yeah right.

[removed]

I do. He's the idiot that Googled "how to get through bulletproof glass" in the middle of the attack and then died in a cornfield, right?

The threat absolutely is real, and it should not (and will not) be taken lightly. But these dipshits are not the "Coming storm". They are not nearly as powerful or numerous as they think. They can cause damage and kill people, but they're not going to Take Over the Country.

We should not be intimidated by them.

> "This isn't a prosecution, it's a persecution,"

possibly the most trite, lame quip imaginable and yet 100% someone wrote this for him, because there is 0 chance that fucking syphilitic waterhead can even distinguish those two words unaided

anyone trying Jan 6 nonsense in Manhattan would get their shit rocked so fucking fast it would be hilarious

She’ll probably lose her job for supporting this

Kinda scary frankly. I mean, I think that trumpers are crazy, but I don’t want any of them to die

[removed]

[removed]

He’s completely lost it

Going to prison in russia means you're going to the front.

As justification to shoot left-wing protestors.

[removed]

> Artificial tears helps prevent dry eye. Dry eye can lead to corneal abrasions and corneal ulcers.

Okay great, wasn't really the question.

> I’m not saying it’s something people should do all the time

Nor have I accused you of saying as much, nor interpreted your statements to mean as much. I appreciate you trying to address what you believe is at issue, though. What you have said was:

> If you don’t use artificial tears [...] you run a risk of developing some nasty issues that can also lead towards enucleation.

Which is a statement of correlation. Can you support it other than simply saying "moistening your eye helps prevent your eyes from being dry and the issues that that can lead to?" Total dry eye sufferers comprise about 13% of the most at-risk age group of 50+ in the US, and of course that total of sufferers includes those not within that age group. Compared to total population it's about *5%. The apparent common sense simplicity of your above first two sentences notwithstanding, I don't believe my skepticism of that stated correlative relationship is undue.

And for my part, to also address possible misinterpretation, I'm not saying people shouldn't use them. What I'm asking is that statements of correlation that imply a product is indespensible to everyone either be supported or couched in appropriate qualifiers required for the statement to be supported.

Edit: The asterisk, 4% became 5% to round up appropriately. I thought I'd already hit the 5 but apparently had not. Apologies.

Why would the police attack themselves?

But but! They've already contributed $7.3 million to the people of East Palestine! (ie $1,460 per person). That should be more than enough, right?

/s get fucked Norfolk Southern.

[removed]

From the article it sounds like the EPA was in favour of lowering the threshold levels for federal clean-up but the Obama administration nixed it.

In the (in my opinion unlikely) event of Trump being indited, we're likely to see a wave of small to medium sized terrorist attacks by MAGA fanatics against police and infrastructure across the country. It's going to be worse than anything in our history short of the Civil War.

My father died when I was 31, can confirm it's shit.